3 ms·
> The economy of the late 70s was a nightmare. And that was Carter's fault? I think you give him to much blame (or credit depending on your point of view). t
by kwhitefoot 5y ago
> The economy of the late 70s was a nightmare.
And that was Carter's fault? I think you give him to much blame (or credit depending on your point of view).
the idea that one person can have such rapid effects seems to me to be one of the most pernicious in politics.
The causes of many of those late 70s problems were much earlier than Carter's presidency, And the oil crisis was largely over by then anyway.
- ethbr0 5y ago> rapid effects Absolutely. We often judge Presidents as though the state of the country today was defined by their decisions yesterday. Or even by their predecessors a few months or years ago. And they shouldn't avoid blame! They are in the most powerful seat in the US government. But at the same time, economic timescales are lengthy, and often more than 4 or 8 years. I get why: because the people pushing that framing are doing so as political PR (positive or negative). But we shouldn't confuse the inaccurate framing with the underlying truth.
- Retric 5y agoI think it’s reasonable to judge presidents for ~4-6 months after they take office to six months after the next guy takes office. Plenty of presidents left just before or after things when to shit, but you only get 4 years, including a lame duck period, which means moving quickly. Sure they don’t control the legislature but they do have quite a bit of leverage to make real compromises.